My Facebook feed is increasingly filled with shaming, scolding, and terrible analogies to remind me why if I don't vote then every shitty thing the government does is my fault personally. And every time I read one I am even less interested in voting.

For a partisan, I would think that voting for the other team would be worse than not voting at all. Y'know, logically speaking.

It's occurred to me that one reason this logic may not deter the YOU MUST VOTE folks is that most people only know citizenry of their own team, and thus there may not be much reason for most to worry about encouraging the other side to vote.

Ellie, may I ask, do the denizens of your Facebook feed mostly all tilt one way or the other? If both teams are represented therein, are you likely an outlier amidst them for knowing members of both groups who mostly only know their own side and don't likely know the members of the other although you know them yourself? Or are these folks in dire danger of directing their adamance against their own interests??

(Of course, in light of your own reaction, it's I suppose it's conceivable that they're really only discouraging people from voting anyway....)

Virtually all of my friends who are on Facebook are leftists. I also get a bit of Christian right-wing bullshit through David's family members, but they aren't the ones posting "VOTE OR ELSE" crap.

Edited to add: I also tend to be very secretive about my personal politics because I hate talking politics in person. I find people on both sides but especially leftists COMPLETELY assume I'm on their side because I'm not shouting them down and because I'm a pleasant person to be around.

Virtually all of my friends who are on Facebook are leftists. I also get a bit of Christian right-wing bullshit through David's family members, but they aren't the ones posting "VOTE OR ELSE" crap.

Edited to add: I also tend to be very secretive about my personal politics because I hate talking politics in person. I find people on both sides but especially leftists COMPLETELY assume I'm on their side because I'm not shouting them down and because I'm a pleasant person to be around.

Anyway, their being virtually all on the one side helps confirm my belief that their adamance about voting is really adamance about voting the right way only it sounds more civic minded to just encourage general voting.

Virtually all of my friends who are on Facebook are leftists. I also get a bit of Christian right-wing bullshit through David's family members, but they aren't the ones posting "VOTE OR ELSE" crap.

Edited to add: I also tend to be very secretive about my personal politics because I hate talking politics in person. I find people on both sides but especially leftists COMPLETELY assume I'm on their side because I'm not shouting them down and because I'm a pleasant person to be around.

Anyway, their being virtually all on the one side helps confirm my belief that their adamance about voting is really adamance about voting the right way only it sounds more civic minded to just encourage general voting.

Also they likely know that the raw numbers game favors them. "If everyone would just vote the Republicans would never win a seat" kind of thing.

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

It’s part of their narrative beyond being part of their strategy. The right feels it is constantly running against Santa Claus so it creates conditions favorable for “adults who have to pay for things” to be a majority of voters. The left believes in its bones that nobody really is culturally right except five rich dudes so their story is always about dirty tricks lies Koch mind control etc. they think max turnout reveals the truth of their message.

I do not care about the motives of those who urge me to VOTE. Most of them revolt me. Sometimes, I can discern the lesser evil and I cast my vote not for them but against the other. If there is a libertarian candidate, I may vote for them. Often I vote for the odd nutbar candidates who get on the ballot as my protest against the established parties. (In Canada, you only need 100 people on the electoral roll for your constituency to sign your nomination papers to get on the ballot.)

In municipal elections, I usually do not bother to vote. Almost every candidate is an inveterate 'do-gooder' and, given that there can be 20 or more candidates, I can't be bothered to read through the tedious blather that they put in their platforms.

If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

Yep. Which is exactly what the left would do if things were reversed.

Which Blue-controlled states are currently using such stunts to disenfranchise people likely to lean Red?

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

JasonL wrote:It’s part of their narrative beyond being part of their strategy. The right feels it is constantly running against Santa Claus so it creates conditions favorable for “adults who have to pay for things” to be a majority of voters. The left believes in its bones that nobody really is culturally right except five rich dudes so their story is always about dirty tricks lies Koch mind control etc. they think max turnout reveals the truth of their message.

The right has a Santa Claus vote, they’re just already high propensity voters. When you’re Santa Claus to old people, you don’t need to nudge to get out the vote. The second white working class whites are exchanged for college educated whites as a permanent coalition for the right, watch the move to make Election Day a holiday.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

If there is a libertarian candidate, I may vote for them. Often I vote for the odd nutbar candidates who get on the ballot as my protest against the established parties.

This is pretty similar to how I vote. If there's a Libertarian I'll vote for them; if there's a candidate who's disadvantaged for a stupid reason (like a local candidate in Knoxville who was Muslim and wore a hijab; that poor lady never had a chance to begin with) I'll vote for them. It's never about getting "my guy" into office because that's never going to happen, but at least I feel like my vote makes a tiny difference in saying, "Look, people do care about this outsider!"

If it's just an R versus a D, though, fuck 'em both, I don't really care. Maybe if one candidate was particularly reprehensible on an issue I cared about, and it was shaping up to be a tight race, I'd come out to vote against the asshole.

Oh, and I continue to be exhausted by the argument that non-voters and third-party voters should have held their noses and voted for Hillary and since we didn't it's our fault that Trump is in office. Um, I think it was kind of YOUR responsibility to not have a shit candidate, not our responsibility to vote for the shit candidate over the super-shit one. (Not that I'm actually going to make that argument because it will go nowhere.)

JasonL wrote:It’s part of their narrative beyond being part of their strategy. The right feels it is constantly running against Santa Claus so it creates conditions favorable for “adults who have to pay for things” to be a majority of voters. The left believes in its bones that nobody really is culturally right except five rich dudes so their story is always about dirty tricks lies Koch mind control etc. they think max turnout reveals the truth of their message.

The right has a Santa Claus vote, they’re just already high propensity voters. When you’re Santa Claus to old people, you don’t need to nudge to get out the vote. The second white working class whites are exchanged for college educated whites as a permanent coalition for the right, watch the move to make Election Day a holiday.

I get your point but not quite what I was trying to convey with the Santa thing. It's that republicans, being conservative storytellers, know that the devil/temptation/free stuff has great appeal - they tell themselves stories about the nature of the other voter that they are potentially young and stupid and don't understand the thing they want to break so it's better when the kiddies don't vote.

Donkeys, being liberal storytellers, don't understand a world where conservative institutions have any appeal at all except to the most powerful white dudes who want to keep people enslaved or whatever. Their stories about the other voter is that they are duped by white run media and marketing, voter suppression, and bringing out the nazis. They want to suppress messaging from the other side that has such corrosive brainwashing effects it makes people "vote against their own interest".

There is an element of truth in both stories, but ... it doesn't exactly break out quite that cleanly.

The thing that I don’t get as being partisan is election security. I know everyone fights the last war, but there’s no reason why China wants to Trump to get re-elected. Also, if Russia wants to sow chaos, give the Dems the House and make the Senate 50-50.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

Yep. Which is exactly what the left would do if things were reversed.

Which Blue-controlled states are currently using such stunts to disenfranchise people likely to lean Red?

Excellent point.

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

Yep. Which is exactly what the left would do if things were reversed.

Which Blue-controlled states are currently using such stunts to disenfranchise people likely to lean Red?

You misunderstand me. I meant that if a greater number of voters favored the Republicans they would be the ones trying to expand voter registration and the Democrats would be the ones trying to make voting more difficult. I know this because that is exactly what happened after the Civil War and well into the 20th century.

I meant that if a greater number of voters favored the Republicans they would be the ones trying to expand voter registration and the Democrats would be the ones trying to make voting more difficult. I know this because that is exactly what happened after the Civil War and well into the 20th century.

The Democrats and Republicans have largely swapped constituencies (or at least swapped states/regions) since then. The Blue coalition of today looks more like the Republicans of that era than the Democrats of that era, and vice-versa.

So I'm not convinced that the events you refer to can be extrapolated to the parties of the same labels in the present era. However, the consistent patterns of those two coalitions do tell us something about the differences between those coalitions.

EDIT: And, interestingly, the great swap of coalitions really got going at full speed around the time that LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act. Another clue to the consistent natures of the underlying coalitions, despite the changing party labels.

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

(And, yes, I'm sure there's some Blue somewhere trying to make it harder for Reds to vote, and some Red somewhere trying to make voting easier, but they are both atypical of their larger parties in the present.)

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

I don't encourage anyone to vote, per se, and routinely point out that I rarely do so myself because I think it's both a waste of time and effort and a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the state. What I have been doing, however, is extorting my many Team Blue friends to realize that if they spent less time venting on Facebook and more time volunteering to help with voter registration, arranging rides to polling places, etc., maybe they might have some actual effect on the elections.

Facebook is like a locker room with all the players screaming at each other how much they have to win and then forgetting they have to take the field and actually play the gawddamn game.

All of the "everyone needs to vote!" stuff comes from the left because that's not the right's tactic. Their tactics are voter suppression: closing early voting locations, disqualifying voters through shitty schemes like use-it-or-lose-it and exact match, getting rid of automatic registration, getting ID laws passed (and then making it harder for "the wrong people" to get IDs), throwing shade on transportation efforts, and making up vote fraud rumors to justify all that stuff.

Yep. Which is exactly what the left would do if things were reversed.

Which Blue-controlled states are currently using such stunts to disenfranchise people likely to lean Red?

You misunderstand me. I meant that if a greater number of voters favored the Republicans they would be the ones trying to expand voter registration and the Democrats would be the ones trying to make voting more difficult. I know this because that is exactly what happened after the Civil War and well into the 20th century.

As Thoreau already pointed out, the Democrats of today are essentially the Republicans of the pre-Civil Rights Era, and vice versa. But even pretending nobody is aware of this -- have you any examples supporting your thesis "Democrats definitely are or would be as bad as Republicans in that regard" that don't require reaching back more than fifty years? Especially anything after the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013?

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Gerrymandering is the one issue where I'll grant "the difference between Democrats and Republicans is negligible at best." But Painboy specifically claimed that Dems would surely engage in voter suppression/disenfranchisement as much as the Republicans currently are doing. That's the claim for which I'd be interested in seeing some evidence. (For all the ways gerrymandering is horrible, at least gerrymandered voters can still cast votes for president or governor and have them be counted; victims of the GOP's voter-suppression tactics can't vote at ALL.)

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b